Search Result in All

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says he doesn\'t rule out running for president in 2014. In an interview with a Lebanese TV network, the Syrian president said he sees no obstacle to making a bid for re-election next year. Assad has stated time and again that he is not holding onto power and only the Syrian people will determine the destiny of the nation in elections. Commenting on the proposed Geneva II conference, Assad said -- factors not yet in place for peace talks. He cited the threats from al-Qaeda affiliated groups, fierce infighting among the militants, and the widening divisions in the fractured opposition. The US promptly responded to Assad\'s remarks. Secretary of State John Kerry said any attempt by Assad to be re-elected would extend the Syrian conflict. Kerry added that the Syrian opposition would never agree to Assad staying in power.

\'US doesn\'t care whether you\'re Sunni or Shia, but whether you obey it\': Iraqi Leader - Sayyed Hashem al-Haidari - English Subs

Today, Bahrain is witnessing an awakening. An unstoppable awakening. How has the ruling authority responded? And what doesn\\\'t it understand?

History is a witness that the Shias of Ali (A) have never been scared of martyrdom. On the contrary, we yearn for martyrdom in the way of Allah. Martyrdom is a gift for those who deserve it. We have a legacy of martyrdom that we proudly carry. That said, the enemy doesn\'t have any idea who they have killed. They have no clue who Martyr Qasem Soleimani was. Sayyid Hasan Nasrallah, S.G. Hezbollah expresses his thoughts while relating it back to #Karbala. #MartyrQasemSoleimani #Sayyid Nasrallah #LongLiveResistance #MustWatch #MustShare

Martyr Qassem Soleimani quotes from a Lebanese martyr in the battle against ISIS

Does any one person or any single government own the Hajj? Who does the Hajj truly belong to? What are some of the obligations upon the government hosting the Hajj and Hajj pilgrims? And in whose interests must the host government work for? Finally, what does Imam Khamenei say about ensuring the safety of Hajj pilgrims that rests heavily upon the host government especially when considering the recurring tragedies that have occurred in the past during the Hajj pilgrimage? The Leader of the Muslim Ummah, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei, answers and explains in his brave and courageous manner how the \"Hajj Doesn\'t Belong to Just One Kingdom\".

Clip Pay attention to Me Ali Reza Panahian Salam my dear. How are you? “May I come up?” Come dear. Do you want to sit here while I’m talking? Shall I talk while you’re sitting here? “Read.” *** During the days and nights of the holy month of Ramadan, we should reap the most benefit. How can we receive light from this month? How can we benefit from God’s Grace in this holy month of Ramadan? By paying attention! This is the main factor. The most important capacity we have in our soul and which we don’t usually benefit from is paying attention. Paying attention is not usually considered to be something that valuable. No matter how much you stand behind a store window and say, “I have truly paid attention to this car behind the window,” this is not something valuable in this world. People say, “You shouldn’t have paid attention to it.” But it is exactly the opposite when standing before God. Whoever has gained something, he has gained it by paying attention to God wholeheartedly and by beseeching Him. In the beginning, paying attention happens in one’s mind. “I have turned my face to Him Who has created the heavens and the earth…” [Qur’an 6:79] A person should pay attention to God in his thoughts. Gradually, when this paying attention becomes deeper, it turns into paying attention with one’s heart. A person faces Him with his heart. “I have turned my face to Him…” “Salam.” Salam my dear. How are you? “May I come up?” Come dear. Come. It’s fine. Come up. Do you want to sit here while I’m talking? Shall I talk while you’re sitting here? Sit here; I’ll talk. You sit, I sit, and we’ll talk. It’s not a problem if I talk? “No. Read.” Read? She says read. Do you want to go down or are you comfortable sitting here? Do you want to go down? She says she won’t come. Let her be. “Candy…” No, no, leave her. “I’ll take her. She’ll be distracting.” No, will you be distracted? “No.” [Audience,] “Haj Aqa, we shouldn’t pay attention [as you were explaining].” Don’t pay attention. She got the candy from you but didn’t come. Of course I am happy to be in the presence of this luminous child. She’s so pure. See. This dear child reminded me of Mr. Baha’udini. His son-in-law related, “Once, I came home, and I saw the children were very noisy. But he was sitting and thinking deeply. I said, ‘Children, be quiet!’ I quieted them. Then, Mr. Baha’udini noticed me. He said, ‘What do you want with the children?!’ I said, ‘I thought they shouldn’t be noisy and bother you.’ He replied, ‘What do they have to do with me?’ I realized that children do not distract Mr. Baha’udini at all.” This ability to pay attention is very valuable. Paying attention means that my face, my soul and my heart are turned toward You God. I’m paying attention to You now. “I have turned my face to Him Who has created the heavens and the earth…” Paying attention to whom? To the One Who has created the heavens and the earth! God doesn’t want anything from His servant. He says, “Just pay attention to Me.” God gives everything to His servant. He’s not stingy at all. God has created us so that He may give to us. God doesn’t want anything. God doesn’t like negligence. He says, “Why aren’t you paying attention to Me?” When a person pays attention, that’s it. Don’t leave your soul unattended to pay attention and become busy with everything it wants. Say, “Wait, I should have a program for myself now.” In order to strengthen your attentiveness, you should pay attention to your sorrows, my dears. Nothing will drag a person’s attention to itself like sorrows. Find beautiful spiritual sorrows and pay attention to them. This is what supplications do. This doesn’t mean we should be sad. It means we should pay attention. If crying and sorrows help, even better. Now what if sorrows distract us from God? That’s a nasty sorrow. Having a sorrow that does not cause a person to pay attention to God and which distances him from God is very bad. This doesn’t mean having sorrows. It means paying attention, and we should gain this ability. O God, help us to leave this holy Month as people who are attentive. There were times when we paid attention to other things besides You. Especially if we have enjoyed them too - very bad! “I ask for Your forgiveness for every pleasure other than remembering You.” [Imam Sajjad (as), Al-Dhakirin Supplication] God doesn’t want anything from His servant. He says, “Just pay attention to Me.” God gives everything to His servant. He’s not stingy at all. God doesn’t want anything. God doesn’t like negligence. During the days and nights of the holy month of Ramadan, it is by being attentive that we benefit. How good it is to recite the Qur’an while being attentive. How good it is to pray while being attentive. Do your work while being attentive. Do your work, but your heart should be with God. ***

Iran's Secretary General of the High Council for Human Rights, Mohammad Javad Larijani has said that the recent claims by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Tehran are “laughable.” In his November 8 report on Iran's nuclear program, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano claimed that Iran had engaged in activities related to developing nuclear weapons before 2003, adding that these activities “may still be ongoing.” Based on the report, which Iran has called "unfounded and unbalanced," the IAEA Board of Governors on Friday passed a new resolution on the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities. The resolution voices "deep and increasing concern" over Tehran's nuclear program and also calls for Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the issue. Larijani made the remarks in a heated television debate aired on the American channel MSNBC. US president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Richard Haass, Mike Barnicle and John Mitchun were the other guests on the television debate. What follows is a rough transcription of the interview: MSNBC: Let's go to the heart of the matter when it comes to Iran, the headlines of the past week, the IAEA report found evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran and you are quoted as saying that is “quite laughable.” Why sir? Larijani: The reason is very simple. There is no single evidence in that. These allegations which is aired again is based on a document which was put to us four years ago based on a laptop somewhere found by United States authorities. And at that time, four years ago, it has been discussed with the agency and the conclusion was that none of these allegations could be verified. So by a letter it has been closed- the whole issue. Then again it has been renewed and [let me] just give you an example. A good part of this so-called document which is on the laptop, for example lecture notes that somebody presented in Brussels or at some universities. Some of them are parts of some textbook as put together with pictures, formulas, so it is totally inconclusive. MSNBC: Let's back up. Before I send this to Richard Haass- are you saying it doesn't exist? There is no nuclear program? Larijani: Well we have a very extensive nuclear program but not to the direction of producing arms. Our nuclear project is very extensive, very advanced. We are number one in the Middle East but we are not pursuing the nuclear armament for two basic reasons. Number one there is a Fatwa by Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader and it is against the Islamic jurisprudence to build and use mass destructing weapons. It is Haram we call it, unlawful. And secondly, it doesn't add to our security. It is more liability than asset for us. Our military muscle is strong enough to repel or to deter any imminent threat and this is basically very important achievement. MSNBC: Richard Haass, put this into perspective for us. What the reports were saying and what this gentleman is saying. Haass: Well quite frankly it is impossible to take the Iranian denial seriously. They are preposterous. The International Atomic Energy Agency taking information from all the member states in the United Nations have put together a comprehensive and extraordinarily damning report. And what there is, is a pattern, not a single incident, a pattern over years of Iranian program to move in the direction of developing nuclear weapons. We see a procurement mechanism to gain access to all sorts of equipment, we see all sorts of undeclared efforts to produce nuclear material now up to 20 percent well on its way to what it needs to produce a weapon, most important there is now serious evidence about the Iranian testing of the implosive device that would actually be the heart of the nuclear weapon. So the idea that the Iranians have all these underground and undeclared facilities, that they have been misleading the International Atomic Energy Agency for years, the idea they're doing this- this oil rich country in order to produce electricity? If you believe that you seriously have to believe in the tooth fairy. MSNBC: Sir this doesn't sound like preposterous, little pieces of information that were roaming together randomly. Larijani: Well the whole scenes of allegation is produced and initiated by the United States. It seems there is a good machinery to produce perpetual allegation against Iran, it is not only one case. I am telling you exactly that there are no secret programs in our nuclear program and development. Iran's transparency is far ahead of United States, far ahead of UK, far ahead of France and incomparable to Israel which is a renegade state in the sense of NPT. Barnicle: So you allow inspectors to just come into Iran. Larijani: The inspectors are coming to Iran periodically, the cameras are there 24 hours. This is quite obvious. Haass: But the whole concept the way this works, just when you talk about inspectors, let's just be clear, I am sure if everyone watching this will understand, the entire international nuclear inspection effort depends upon the willingness of the country in question to cooperate fully. This is a gentlemen's agreement. They declare their facilities that are involved in the nuclear business then the inspectors come in and look at them. If they do not declare facilities the inspectors don't give a chance and the problem is this is a gentlemen's agreement in a world where not every country is a gentleman. So Iran quite frankly has undeclared facilities and undeclared programs which the inspectors had not had access to and the reason we only know about it is that member states, not simply the United States sir, but many, many member states of the United Nations have provided independent information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which by the way you know and I know is not controlled by the United States. We have fundamental differences with this agency over the years including over Iraq. We had fundamental differences and we've also had differences over Iran where we the United States felt, this agency was not being nearly tough enough. So now they have come in with an extraordinarily damning report and Iranian officials can dismiss it. MSNBC: So if this is a gentlemen's agreement, the gentlemen certainly don't agree and sir, you seem very confident and almost as if it's funny it's interesting because we interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about this about a year ago, off camera, and he too seemed very comfortable about his position which is similar to yours. And if you are so comfortable with your position about the lack of nuclear armament and the facilities that the IAEA is talking about, why not let inspectors completely come in? Open the door let them come in and see what you have. Larijani: Well the mechanism that the gentleman addressed is not complete because first of all there is no single secret installment or activity which is concealed from the agency. Secondly, two years ago we asked the agency tell us all the questions you have and he managed to put to us six groups of questions. The questions were raised by themselves not dictated by us. So one by one groups of inspectors came to Iran and we cleared them up and there is official letters from them this group has been finished then we moved to another one. Well it doesn't make sense that every morning somebody says we guess there is some secret things done there. There should be foundation for this allegation. What do you mean the door should be open? They should ask where do you want to inspect? Did they want to inspect my bedroom or other places? I mean it doesn't make sense. Barnicle: A few moments ago when you mentioned the nuclear programs of other nations I detected a definite edge in your voice when you mentioned the state of Israel. Do you fear an attack from the state of Israel on your nuclear facilities? Larijani: Well I am beyond the fear. What is the difference between us and Israel? Israel has a bomb, not a member of NPT; it doesn't disclose anything to agency, nothing wrong with it. You see what the double standard is in here. We are member of NPT, they periodically come to Iran, their cameras are there, we don't have the weapon then the whole pressure is put on us. No, not at all. We don't fear any attack from anyone. We take it serious in our calculation but we don't fear. There is a difference between that. Mitchum: Given your tone again Sir when you talk about Israel, just a second ago why shouldn't we suspect that there would be ambitions for Iran to join the club of which Israel is a part with the nuclear arms? Larijani: We are very advanced in the nuclear technology which is a matter of pride for us and that gentleman mentioned that we have plenty of gas and oil with all good calculations, the age of this is up to 20-25 period, 25 years from now. It means that if we don't have it, then we should beg in front of the Western countries to light our houses and we know how bad they are treating us in this area. We are right now very happy that we have the first power plant, we know how to make the fuel. We already have more than 25 percent share of sodalite and erudite they don't give us a bit of this fuel that we need, even the twenty percent that we needed for Tehran. Haass: It's important to keep in mind we are not talking about an established democracy that treats its own people with respect, we are talking about a country also that is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. So this is obvious and understandable concern about what Iran is doing. Larijani: In terms of record I think United States of America is the largest and the greatest country supporting terrorism. The records of terrorist activity which is supported by the tax money of these people is enormous, I can go one by one. Barnicle: Wait a minute. This is a free country. And part of our gift is we have the liberty and the freedom to say anything and to sound foolish, to sound absurd, to sound smart. That's absurd saying that America is the biggest terrorist nation in the world. My question to you Sir is, you seem like a really nice guy, alright, why doesn't your country be a better neighbor? Larijani: We have fantastic relations with all of our neighbors... Barnicle: Really? [laughing] Larijani: Definitely, but the policy of demonizing Iran, a very important policy which is pursued in the region- well it has its own benefit. Barnicle But it's just in little things, like the American tourists cross the border, supposedly cross the border, you grab them, you scoop them, you hold them for months on end. Why? Larijani: This is a very simple question I answered before; suppose the security of your people... Barnicle You're here... Larijani: No, I'm here with visa- It's quite different. [Suppose] The security of the United States' people, on a patrol with Mexico elsewhere they pick 3 Iranians and ask them why are you here? They say well we are just walking in the desert. Well, with the whole hostility and suspicion which is between the two countries, you are in here to blow up somewhere definitely they will be put into jail for years if not in Guantanamo, they bring them somewhere else. It took a lot of time that we convince- I was working on this case because they were like me from ... Berkeley. I talked with their families, managed to contact between them and their families when they were arrested- for their families to come to Iran to take the suspicion away. This is very natural for security of people to suspect a cross bordering which is in the most volatile regional area of Iran- in which there is daily shooting over there. Barnicle Ok. They're going to blow up the desert. What is the root? What do you think is the root of Iranian paranoia towards the United States and towards many of its neighbors? What is the root of this paranoia? Is it the fear that we find out about your nuclear program? Larijani: We don't have any paranoia about our neighbors. We are very suspicious of American paranoia with us. The question is what is wrong with Iran that this persistent hostility... Barnicle: You have a track record of international terrorism. Larijani: This is not true. We are ourselves the victim of international terrorism- terrorism in the area. Let me ask you, who was helping Al-Qaida and Taliban for years while we were at war with them in Afghanistan? The United States of America. The money from the United States was pouring to Al-Qaida and Taliban- the idea was we should curb Iran by another religious front. Is it correct? Haass: No it's not correct. The United States did support the Mujahidin; obviously in order to get rid of the Soviet... to say that the United States supported Al-Qaida is again preposterous- the fact is that Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon, it's supporting groups like Hezbollah, groups like Hamas; it is involved in Iraq; it is involved in Afghanistan. Iran has basically become a regional power that is trying to destabilize many countries, trying to make them in some ways heavily influenced by Tehran and that is simply a fact of life- which again is one of the reasons the world is so concerned about Iranian nuclear program. How do we know Iran will not become even more aggressive? How do we know that nuclear materials will not end in the hands of a group like Hezbollah? What do we see about Iran's track record that would lead us to believe that Iran in any way would be responsible with nuclear material? This is a genuine concern and if you dismiss it as laughable Sir you are seriously underestimating not simply the American, not simply the Israeli, but I would suggest the world's concern over the direction your government is heading. Larijani: The disastrous thing is the blind policy of the United States in supporting carte blanche renegade Israel which is the source of all tension in the region. If you call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist groups- they are fighting to be given the permission to live. What about Israel? Israel is involved in government sponsored terrorism. Kills anybody who thinks that it's not correct and deprives millions of people from basic tenures of life. 60 years of atrocity in that area is supported carte blanche by the US, this is even against the basic interests of that nation- they don't know it. Mitchum:Sir do you recognize the right of Israel to exist? Larijani: We recognize the rights of Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together in peace and tranquility- to create a racist regime in the middle of a land put the others out is like creating a small colony for the blacks and leave the rest for the whites. Mitchum: Thank you for the answer. Barnicle: The answer is no. Larijani: No, the answer is not no. We respect any decision by Palestinians. We are not in a position to tell them what kind of state they [should] have. But they should be given the chance to decide. MSNBC:This has been fascinating and a great picture window into the choices that Americans make when they're choosing their president and also a sense of what our Secretary of State and what our diplomats have to confront in dealing with when they're going out into the world and working with other countries. It is extremely complicated and often conversations feel like they're going in circles because it's very hard to develop a common understanding or even a place where you can start engaging and I think this was an example of that. Mohammad Javad Larijani, thank you for coming on the show this morning.

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday, Following is the full text of the interview: Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President. President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness? President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else. Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example. President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces. Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria? President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir. Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel. President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference? President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else. Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command? President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance. Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance? President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now? President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak? President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change. Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game? President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan. Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do? President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons. Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles? President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis? President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names. Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups? President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves. Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month? President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend. Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options. President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see. Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions? President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear. Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term? President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\\\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government. Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014? President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk. Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League? President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League. Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations? President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them. Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted? President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house. Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel? President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world. Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon. Al-Manar: Thank you.

DAMASCUS, (SANA)-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to al-Manar TV broadcasted on Thursday, Following is the full text of the interview: Al-Manar: In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Assalamu Alaikum. Bloodshed in Syria continues unabated. This is the only constant over which there is little disagreement between those loyal to the Syrian state and those opposed to it. However, there is no common ground over the other constants and details two years into the current crisis. At the time, a great deal was said about the imminent fall of the regime. Deadlines were set and missed; and all those bets were lost. Today, we are here in the heart of Damascus, enjoying the hospitality of a president who has become a source of consternation to many of his opponents who are still unable to understand the equations that have played havoc with their calculations and prevented his ouster from the Syrian political scene. This unpleasant and unexpected outcome for his opponents upset their schemes and plots because they didn’t take into account one self-evident question: what happens if the regime doesn’t fall? What if President Assad doesn’t leave the Syrian scene? Of course, there are no clear answers; and the result is more destruction, killing and bloodshed. Today there is talk of a critical juncture for Syria. The Syrian Army has moved from defense to attack, achieving one success after another. On a parallel level, stagnant diplomatic waters have been shaken by discussions over a Geneva 2 conference becoming a recurrent theme in the statements of all parties. There are many questions which need answers: political settlement, resorting to the military option to decide the outcome, the Israeli enemy’s direct interference with the course of events in the current crisis, the new equations on the Golan Heights, the relationship with opponents and friends. What is the Syrian leadership’s plan for a way out of a complex and dangerous crisis whose ramifications have started to spill over into neighboring countries? It is our great pleasure tonight to put these questions to H. E. President Bashar al-Assad. Assalamu Alaikum, Mr. President. President Assad: Assalamu Alaikum. You are most welcome in Damascus. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we are in the heart of the People’s Palace, two and a half years into the Syrian crisis. At the time, the bet was that the president and his regime would be overthrown within weeks. How have you managed to foil the plots of your opponents and enemies? What is the secret behind this steadfastness? President Assad: There are a number of factors are involved. One is the Syrian factor, which thwarted their intentions; the other factor is related to those who masterminded these scenarios and ended up defeating themselves because they do not know Syria or understand in detail the situation. They started with the calls of revolution, but a real revolution requires tangible elements; you cannot create a revolution simply by paying money. When this approach failed, they shifted to using sectarian slogans in order to create a division within our society. Even though they were able to infiltrate certain pockets in Syrian society, pockets of ignorance and lack of awareness that exist in any society, they were not able to create this sectarian division. Had they succeeded, Syria would have been divided up from the beginning. They also fell into their own trap by trying to promote the notion that this was a struggle to maintain power rather than a struggle for national sovereignty. No one would fight and martyr themselves in order to secure power for anyone else. Al-Manar: In the battle for the homeland, it seems that the Syrian leadership, and after two and a half years, is making progress on the battlefield. And here if I might ask you, why have you chosen to move from defense to attack? And don’t you think that you have been late in taking the decision to go on the offensive, and consequently incurred heavy losses, if we take of Al-Qseir as an example. President Assad: It is not a question of defense or attack. Every battle has its own tactics. From the beginning, we did not deal with each situation from a military perspective alone. We also factored in the social and political aspects as well - many Syrians were misled in the beginning and there were many friendly countries that didn’t understand the domestic dynamics. Your actions will differ according to how much consensus there is over a particular issue. There is no doubt that as events have unfolded Syrians have been able to better understand the situation and what is really at stake. This has helped the Armed Forces to better carry out their duties and achieve results. So, what is happening now is not a shift in tactic from defense to attack, but rather a shift in the balance of power in favor of the Armed Forces. Al-Manar: How has this balance been tipped, Mr. President? Syria is being criticized for asking for the assistance of foreign fighters, and to be fully candid, it is said that Hezbollah fighters are extending assistance. In a previous interview, you said that there are 23 million Syrians; we do not need help from anyone else. What is Hezbollah doing in Syria? President Assad: The main reason for tipping the balance is the change in people’s opinion in areas that used to incubate armed groups, not necessarily due to lack of patriotism on their part, but because they were deceived. They were led to believe that there was a revolution against the failings of the state. This has changed; many individuals have left these terrorist groups and have returned to their normal lives. As to what is being said about Hezbollah and the participation of foreign fighters alongside the Syrian Army, this is a hugely important issue and has several factors. Each of these factors should be clearly understood. Hezbollah, the battle at Al-Qseir and the recent Israeli airstrike – these three factors cannot be looked at in isolation of the other, they are all a part of the same issue. Let’s be frank. In recent weeks, and particularly after Mr. Hasan Nasrallah’s speech, Arab and foreign media have said that Hezbollah fighters are fighting in Syria and defending the Syrian state, or to use their words “the regime.” Logically speaking, if Hezbollah or the resistance wanted to defend Syria by sending fighters, how many could they send - a few hundred, a thousand or two? We are talking about a battle in which hundreds of thousands of Syrian troops are involved against tens of thousands of terrorists, if not more because of the constant flow of fighters from neighboring and foreign countries that support those terrorists. So clearly, the number of fighters Hezbollah might contribute in order to defend the Syrian state in its battle, would be a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Syrian soldiers fighting the terrorists. When also taking into account the vast expanse of Syria, these numbers will neither protect a state nor ‘regime.’ This is from one perspective. From another, if they say they are defending the state, why now? Battles started after Ramadan in 2011 and escalated into 2012, the summer of 2012 to be precise. They started the battle to “liberate Damascus” and set a zero hour for the first time, the second time and a third time; the four generals were assassinated, a number of individuals fled Syria, and many people believed that was the time the state would collapse. It didn’t. Nevertheless, during all of these times, Hezbollah never intervened, so why would it intervene now? More importantly, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah fighting in Damascus and Aleppo? The more significant battles are in Damascus and in Aleppo, not in Al-Qseir. Al-Qseir is a small town in Homs, why haven’t we seen Hezbollah in the city of Homs? Clearly, all these assumptions are inaccurate. They say Al-Qseir is a strategic border town, but all the borders are strategic for the terrorists in order to smuggle in their fighters and weapons. So, all these propositions have nothing to do with Hezbollah. If we take into account the moans and groans of the Arab media, the statements made by Arab and foreign officials – even Ban Ki-moon expressed concern over Hezbollah in Al-Qseir – all of this is for the objective of suppressing and stifling the resistance. It has nothing to do with defending the Syrian state. The Syrian army has made significant achievements in Damascus, Aleppo, rural Damascus and many other areas; however, we haven’t heard the same moaning as we have heard in Al-Qseir. Al-Manar: But, Mr. President, the nature of the battle that you and Hezbollah are waging in Al-Qseir seems, to your critics, to take the shape of a safe corridor connecting the coastal region with Damascus. Consequently, if Syria were to be divided, or if geographical changes were to be enforced, this would pave the way for an Alawite state. So, what is the nature of this battle, and how is it connected with the conflict with Israel. President Assad: First, the Syrian and Lebanese coastal areas are not connected through Al-Qseir. Geographically this is not possible. Second, nobody would fight a battle in order to move towards separation. If you opt for separation, you move towards that objective without waging battles all over the country in order to be pushed into a particular corner. The nature of the battle does not indicate that we are heading for division, but rather the opposite, we are ensuring we remain a united country. Our forefathers rejected the idea of division when the French proposed this during their occupation of Syria because at the time they were very aware of its consequences. Is it possible or even fathomable that generations later, we their children, are less aware or mindful? Once again, the battle in Al-Qseir and all the bemoaning is related to Israel. The timing of the battle in Al-Qseir was synchronized with the Israeli airstrike. Their objective is to stifle the resistance. This is the same old campaign taking on a different form. Now what’s important is not al-Qseir as a town, but the borders; they want to stifle the resistance from land and from the sea. Here the question begs itself - some have said that the resistance should face the enemy and consequently remain in the south. This was said on May 7, 2008, when some of Israel’s agents in Lebanon tried to tamper with the communications system of the resistance; they claimed that the resistance turned its weapons inwards. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army; that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We have said very clearly that our Army will fight the enemy wherever it is. When the enemy is in the north, we move north; the same applies if the enemy comes from the east or the west. This is also the case for Hezbollah. So the question is why is Hezbollah deployed on the borders inside Lebanon or inside Syria? The answer is that our battle is a battle against the Israeli enemy and its proxies inside Syria or inside Lebanon. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if I might ask about Israel’s involvement in the Syrian crisis through the recent airstrike against Damascus. Israel immediately attached certain messages to this airstrike by saying it doesn’t want escalation or doesn’t intend to interfere in the Syrian crisis. The question is: what does Israel want and what type of interference? President Assad: This is exactly my point. Everything that is happening at the moment is aimed, first and foremost, at stifling the resistance. Israel’s support of the terrorists was for two purposes. The first is to stifle the resistance; the second is to strike the Syrian air defense systems. It is not interested in anything else. Al-Manar: Mr. President, since Israel’s objectives are clear, the Syrian state was criticized for its muted response. Everyone was expecting a Syrian response, and the Syrian government stated that it reserves the right to respond at the appropriate time and place. Why didn’t the response come immediately? And is it enough for a senior source to say that missiles have been directed at the Israeli enemy and that any attack will be retaliated immediately without resorting to Army command? President Assad: We have informed all the Arab and foreign parties - mostly foreign - that contacted us, that we will respond the next time. Of course, there has been more than one response. There have been several Israeli attempted violations to which there was immediate retaliation. But these short-term responses have no real value; they are only of a political nature. If we want to respond to Israel, the response will be of strategic significance. Al-Manar: How? By opening the Golan front, for instance? President Assad: This depends on public opinion, whether there is a consensus in support of the resistance or not. That’s the question. Al-Manar: How is the situation in Syria now? President Assad: In fact, there is clear popular pressure to open the Golan front to resistance. This enthusiasm is also on the Arab level; we have received many Arab delegations wanting to know how young people might be enrolled to come and fight Israel. Of course, resistance is not easy. It is not merely a question of opening the front geographically. It is a political, ideological, and social issue, with the net result being military action. Al-Manar: Mr. President, if we take into account the incident on the Golan Heights and Syria’s retaliation on the Israeli military vehicle that crossed the combat line, does this mean that the rules of engagement have changed? And if the rules of the game have changed, what is the new equation, so to speak? President Assad: Real change in the rules of engagement happens when there is a popular condition pushing for resistance. Any other change is short-term, unless we are heading towards war. Any response of any kind might only appear to be a change to the rules of engagement, but I don’t think it really is. The real change is when the people move towards resistance; this is the really dramatic change. Al-Manar: Don’t you think that this is a little late? After 40 years of quiet and a state of truce on the Golan Heights, now there is talk of a movement on that front, about new equations and about new rules of the game? President Assad: They always talk about Syria opening the front or closing the front. A state does not create resistance. Resistance can only be called so, when it is popular and spontaneous, it cannot be created. The state can either support or oppose the resistance, - or create obstacles, as is the case with some Arab countries. I believe that a state that opposes the will of its people for resistance is reckless. The issue is not that Syria has decided, after 40 years, to move in this direction. The public’s state of mind is that our National Army is carrying out its duties to protect and liberate our land. Had there not been an army, as was the situation in Lebanon when the army and the state were divided during the civil war, there would have been resistance a long time ago. Today, in the current circumstances, there are a number of factors pushing in that direction. First, there are repeated Israeli aggressions that constitute a major factor in creating this desire and required incentive. Second, the army’s engagement in battles in more than one place throughout Syria has created a sentiment on the part of many civilians that it is their duty to move in this direction in order to support the Armed Forces on the Golan. Al-Manar: Mr. President, Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not hesitate to attack Syria if it detected that weapons are being conveyed to Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Israel carried out its threats, I want a direct answer from you: what would Syria do? President Assad: As I have said, we have informed the relevant states that we will respond in kind. Of course, it is difficult to specify the military means that would be used, that is for our military command to decide. We plan for different scenarios, depending on the circumstances and the timing of the strike that would determine which method or weapons. Al-Manar: Mr. President, after the airstrike that targeted Damascus, there was talk about the S300 missiles and that this missile system will tip the balance. Based on this argument, Netanyahu visited Moscow. My direct question is this: are these missiles on their way to Damascus? Is Syria now in possession of these missiles? President Assad: It is not our policy to talk publically about military issues in terms of what we possess or what we receive. As far as Russia is concerned, the contracts have nothing to do with the crisis. We have negotiated with them on different kinds of weapons for years, and Russia is committed to honoring these contracts. What I want to say is that neither Netanyahu’s visit nor the crisis and the conditions surrounding it have influenced arms imports. All of our agreements with Russia will be implemented, some have been implemented during the past period and, together with the Russians, we will continue to implement these contracts in the future. Al-Manar: Mr. President, we have talked about the steadfastness of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian state. We have discussed the progress being achieved on the battlefield, and strengthening the alliance between Syria and the resistance. These are all within the same front. From another perspective, there is diplomatic activity stirring waters that have been stagnant for two and a half years. Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn, there was a simple proposition or a simple solution suggested by the former head of the coalition, Muaz al-Khatib. He said that the president, together with 500 other dignitaries would be allowed to leave the country within 20 days, and the crisis would be over. Why don’t you meet this request and put an end to the crisis? President Assad: I have always talked about the basic principle: that the Syrian people alone have the right to decide whether the president should remain or leave. So, anybody speaking on this subject should state which part of the Syrian people they represent and who granted them the authority to speak on their behalf. As for this initiative, I haven’t actually read it, but I was very happy that they allowed me 20 days and 500 people! I don’t know who proposed the initiative; I don’t care much about names. Al-Manar: He actually said that you would be given 20 days, 500 people, and no guarantees. You’ll be allowed to leave but with no guarantee whatsoever on whether legal action would be taken against you or not. Mr. President, this brings us to the negotiations, I am referring to Geneva 2. The Syrian government and leadership have announced initial agreement to take part in this conference. If this conference is held, there will be a table with the Syrian flag on one side and the flag of the opposition groups on the other. How can you convince the Syrian people after two and a half years of crisis that you will sit face to face at the same negotiating table with these groups? President Assad: First of all, regarding the flag, it is meaningless without the people it represents. When we put a flag on a table or anywhere else, we talk about the people represented by that flag. This question can be put to those who raise flags they call Syrian but are different from the official Syrian flag. So, this flag has no value when it does not represent the people. Secondly, we will attend this conference as the official delegation and legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. But, whom do they represent? When the conference is over, we return to Syria, we return home to our people. But when the conference is over, whom do they return to - five-star hotels? Or to the foreign ministries of the states that they represent – which doesn’t include Syria of course - in order to submit their reports? Or do they return to the intelligence services of those countries? So, when we attend this conference, we should know very clearly the positions of some of those sitting at the table - and I say some because the conference format is not clear yet and as such we do not have details as to how the patriotic Syrian opposition will be considered or the other opposition parties in Syria. As for the opposition groups abroad and their flag, we know that we are attending the conference not to negotiate with them, but rather with the states that back them; it will appear as though we are negotiating with the slaves, but essentially we are negotiating with their masters. This is the truth, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves. Al-Manar: Are you, in the Syrian leadership, convinced that these negotiations will be held next month? President Assad: We expect them to happen, unless they are obstructed by other states. As far as we are concerned in Syria, we have announced a couple of days ago that we agree in principle to attend. Al-Manar: When you say in principle, it seems that you are considering other options. President Assad: In principle, we are in favour of the conference as a notion, but there are no details yet. For example, will there be conditions placed before the conference? If so, these conditions may be unacceptable and we would not attend. So the idea of the conference, of a meeting, in principle is a good one. We will have to wait and see. Al-Manar: Let’s talk, Mr. President, about the conditions put by the Syrian leadership. What are Syria’s conditions? President Assad: Simply put, our only condition is that anything agreed upon in any meeting inside or outside the country, including the conference, is subject to the approval of the Syrian people through a popular referendum. This is the only condition. Anything else doesn’t have any value. That is why we are comfortable with going to the conference. We have no complexes. Either side can propose anything, but nothing can be implemented without the approval of the Syrian people. And as long as we are the legitimate representatives of the people, we have nothing to fear. Al-Manar: Let’s be clear, Mr. President. There is a lot of ambiguity in Geneva 1 and Geneva 2 about the transitional period and the role of President Bashar al-Assad in that transitional period. Are you prepared to hand over all your authorities to this transitional government? And how do you understand this ambiguous term? President Assad: This is what I made clear in the initiative I proposed in January this year. They say they want a transitional government in which the president has no role. In Syria we have a presidential system, where the President is head of the republic and the Prime Minister heads the government. They want a government with broad authorities. The Syrian constitution gives the government full authorities. The president is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Armed Forces and the head of the Supreme Judicial Council. All the other institutions report directly to the government. Changing the authorities of the president is subject to changing the constitution; the president cannot just relinquish his authorities, he doesn\'t have the constitutional right. Changing the constitution requires a popular referendum. When they want to propose such issues, they might be discussed in the conference, and when we agree on something - if we agree, we return home and put it to a popular referendum and then move on. But for them to ask for the amendment of the constitution in advance, this cannot be done neither by the president nor by the government. Al-Manar: Frankly, Mr. President, all the international positions taken against you and all your political opponents said that they don’t want a role for al-Assad in Syria’s future. This is what the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said and this is what the Turks and the Qataris said, and also the Syrian opposition. Will President Assad be nominated for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2014? President Assad: What I know is that Saud al-Faisal is a specialist in American affairs, I don’t know if he knows anything about Syrian affairs. If he wants to learn, that’s fine! As to the desires of others, I repeat what I have said earlier: the only desires relevant are those of the Syrian people. With regards to the nomination, some parties have said that it is preferable that the president shouldn’t be nominated for the 2014 elections. This issue will be determined closer to the time; it is still too early to discuss this. When the time comes, and I feel, through my meetings and interactions with the Syrian people, that there is a need and public desire for me to nominate myself, I will not hesitate. However, if I feel that the Syrian people do not want me to lead them, then naturally I will not put myself forward. They are wasting their time on such talk. Al-Manar: Mr. President, you mentioned the Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. This makes me ask about Syria’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Turkey, particularly if we take into account that their recent position in the Arab ministerial committee was relatively moderate. They did not directly and publically call for the ouster of President Assad. Do you feel any change or any support on the part of these countries for a political solution to the Syrian crisis? And is Syria prepared to deal once more with the Arab League, taking into account that the Syrian government asked for an apology from the Arab League? President Assad: Concerning the Arab states, we see brief changes in their rhetoric but not in their actions. The countries that support the terrorists have not changed; they are still supporting terrorism to the same extent. Turkey also has not made any positive steps. As for Qatar, their role is also the same, the role of the funder - the bank funding the terrorists and supporting them through Turkey. So, overall, no change. As for the Arab League, in Syria we have never pinned our hopes on the Arab League. Even in the past decades, we were barely able to dismantle the mines set for us in the different meetings, whether in the summits or in meetings of the foreign ministers. So in light of this and its recent actions, can we really expect it to play a role? We are open to everybody, we never close our doors. But we should also be realistic and face the truth that they are unable to offer anything, particularly since a significant number of the Arab states are not independent. They receive their orders from the outside. Some of them are sympathetic to us in their hearts, but they cannot act on their feelings because they are not in possession of their decisions. So, no, we do not pin any hopes on the Arab League. Al-Manar: Mr. President, this leads us to ask: if the Arab environment is as such, and taking into account the developments on the ground and the steadfastness, the Geneva conference and the negotiations, the basic question is: what if the political negotiations fail? What are the consequences of the failure of political negotiations? President Assad: This is quite possible, because there are states that are obstructing the meeting in principle, and they are going only to avoid embarrassment. They are opposed to any dialogue whether inside or outside Syria. Even the Russians, in several statements, have dampened expectations from this conference. But we should also be accurate in defining this dialogue, particularly in relation to what is happening on the ground. Most of the factions engaged in talking about what is happening in Syria have no influence on the ground; they don’t even have direct relationships with the terrorists. In some instances these terrorists are directly linked with the states that are backing them, in other cases, they are mere gangs paid to carry out terrorist activities. So, the failure of the conference will not significantly change the reality inside Syria, because these states will not stop supporting the terrorists - conference or no conference, and the gangs will not stop their subversive activities. So it has no impact on them. Al-Manar: Mr. President, the events in Syria are spilling over to neighboring countries. We see what’s happening in Iraq, the explosions in Al-Rihaniye in Turkey and also in Lebanon. In Ersal, Tripoli, Hezbollah taking part in the fighting in Al-Qseir. How does Syria approach the situation in Lebanon, and do you think the Lebanese policy of dissociation is still applied or accepted? President Assad: Let me pose some questions based on the reality in Syria and in Lebanon about the policy of dissociation in order not to be accused of making a value judgment on whether this policy is right or wrong. Let’s start with some simple questions: Has Lebanon been able to prevent Lebanese interference in Syria? Has it been able to prevent the smuggling of terrorists or weapons into Syria or providing a safe haven for them in Lebanon? It hasn’t; in fact, everyone knows that Lebanon has contributed negatively to the Syrian crisis. Most recently, has Lebanon been able to protect itself against the consequences of the Syrian crisis, most markedly in Tripoli and the missiles that have been falling over different areas of Beirut or its surroundings? It hasn’t. So what kind of dissociation are we talking about? For Lebanon to dissociate itself from the crisis is one thing, and for the government to dissociate itself is another. When the government dissociates itself from a certain issue that affects the interests of the Lebanese people, it is in fact dissociating itself from the Lebanese citizens. I’m not criticizing the Lebanese government - I’m talking about general principles. I don’t want it to be said that I’m criticizing this government. If the Syrian government were to dissociate itself from issues that are of concern to the Syrian people, it would also fail. So in response to your question with regards to Lebanon’s policy of dissociation, we don’t believe this is realistically possible. When my neighbor’s house is on fire, I cannot say that it’s none of my business because sooner or later the fire will spread to my house. Al-Manar: Mr. President, what would you say to the supporters of the axis of resistance? We are celebrating the anniversary of the victory of the resistance and the liberation of south Lebanon, in an atmosphere of promises of victory, which Mr. Hasan Nasrallah has talked about. You are saying with great confidence that you will emerge triumphant from this crisis. What would you say to all this audience? Are we about to reach the end of this dark tunnel? President Assad: I believe that the greatest victory achieved by the Arab resistance movements in the past years and decades is primarily an intellectual victory. This resistance wouldn’t have been able to succeed militarily if they hadn’t been able to succeed and stand fast against a campaign aimed at distorting concepts and principles in this region. Before the civil war in Lebanon, some people used to say that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness; this is similar to saying that a man’s intelligence lies in his stupidity, or that honor is maintained through corruption. This is an illogical contradiction. The victories of the resistance at different junctures proved that this concept is not true, and it showed that Lebanon’s weakness lies in its weakness and Lebanon’s strength lies in its strength. Lebanon’s strength is in its resistance and these resistance fighters you referred to. Today, more than ever before, we are in need of these ideas, of this mindset, of this steadfastness and of these actions carried out by the resistance fighters. The events in the Arab world during the past years have distorted concepts to the extent that some Arabs have forgotten that the real enemy is still Israel and have instead created internal, sectarian, regional or national enemies. Today we pin our hopes on these resistance fighters to remind the Arab people, through their achievements, that our enemy is still the same. As for my confidence in victory, if we weren’t so confident we wouldn’t have been able to stand fast or to continue this battle after two years of a global attack. This is not a tripartite attack like the one in 1956; it is in fact a global war waged against Syria and the resistance. We have absolute confidence in our victory, and I assure them that Syria will always remain, even more so than before, supportive of the resistance and resistance fighters everywhere in the Arab world. Al-Manar: In conclusion, it has been my great honor to conduct this interview with Your Excellency, President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Thank you very much. President Assad: You are welcome. I would like to congratulate Al-Manar channel, the channel of resistance, on the anniversary of the liberation and to congratulate the Lebanese people and every resistance fighter in Lebanon. Al-Manar: Thank you.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran. JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities. The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue. The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran. AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran. Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more. Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president. AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic. Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur. JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs. We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region. AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place. A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another. But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number. So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free. JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that? AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now. PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed. AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it. Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that. But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy. AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program? PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see. Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here. I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end. It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward. I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie. AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran. Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is. JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there? ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion. Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad. But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue. AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad. ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president

Becoming familiar with some of the sweet concepts of the Sha’baniya Supplication Session 1 In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. It is very good before using, reading, thinking or whispering a supplication to God, to become familiar with the supplications’ passage in detail, become aware of its meaning and refer to the expositions on it. In these short opportunities, I will try to briefly discuss some topics to help us become familiar with this supplication. We hope the Almighty God will give us success to get the most use from this supplication. The “Sha’baniya Supplication” starts with sending salutations on the Holy Prophet (s) and his Pure Household (‘a). According to many recommendations, which everyone has heard, and as has been mentioned in the traditions very much too, each prayer should start with salutations. This prayer has started with salutations too, like many other prayers, which have reached us. In the prayers that do not start with salutations, naturally we should send these salutations ourselves. There are many reasons for this. I will only say one sentence about this and pass on it. It is as if when a person doesn’t have the Household of the Prophet’s guardianship, their guardianship is not in his heart, and he doesn’t remember these personages with honor, the Almighty God doesn’t hear him, won’t answer his prayer and doesn’t take this person into account. For whoever enters the Judgment Day, his/her ID is following God’s Guardians. In this case too, whoever stands in God’s presence should show his/her ID. This salutation is our identity card. If a person shows this identity card with love and devotion, says, “God, see I’m devoted to the Prophet and his Household,” hasn’t just said the salutations negligently, and has repeated this salutation with fondness, the way will open for him to pray. In the first phrase, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (‘a), uses three surprising words. This prayer starts without any introduction. “Hear my prayer when I call You. Hear my voice when I call You. Pay attention to me when I whisper to You.” One of the wonders of this prayer is that it starts without any introduction. This prayer is the words of a person who can’t tolerate anymore! It’s as if he has come a far distance and only wants to moan. He knows that God is waiting to hear his words, but he wants to shout at times, whisper at times and pray at times. “Hear my voice when I call you.” “Nida” means calling with a loud voice. “Pay attention to me when I whisper to You.” “Najwa” means talking in a very low voice. And “Du’a” is used for any kind of calling. Three consecutive words. It is as if the Commander of the Faithful wants to cry out, “God, I want to talk to You!” He’s showing his insistence to whisper to God, cry out to Him and supplicate Him. He’s not saying others things. He wants, calls and invites God. The next sentence shows this. “I have escaped to You and am standing between Your hands.” “I have escaped to You” means I have escaped and come to You. It gives the same feeling that those three words had. “Hear my prayer. Hear my voice. Pay attention to me when I whisper to You.” It’s as if a person has come running. “I am now standing between Your hands.” “Between Your hands” is a more beautiful and pleasing concept than standing in front of God. It’s as if a little one has taken refuge with a great one and is in his power. This is much more beautiful. Those who are the smaller one before a greater one, and have felt the support of a kind, greater one, can understand this. “I am poor before You and I beseech You.” The Commander of the Faithful (‘a) is only beseeching in this supplication. He is expressing this with different phrases. He is beseeching in all of his words. These words are not meaningless words for the Commander of the Faithful. These words arise from the depth of his feelings. He wants to cry intensely with these words. We study, review and even think about these words. But, these words have become internalized for the Commander of the Faithful. The Imam is not reading these words from a prayer book. These words are the interpretation of the Imam’s moans. =================================== Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ =================================== Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/c/PanahianEnglish =================================== See our pages in various languages: https://panahian.net/ ===================================

Session 4 / Becoming familiar with some of the sweet concepts of the Sha’baniya Supplication In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. The feeling of wanting to supplicate God is a feeling that is caused by spiritual maturity. As a result of spiritual maturity, a person feels dependent on God, like the attachment a child has to his parents. When you separate a child from his mother, he doesn’t calm down no matter what logic you use. He can’t tolerate even a moment of being separated whatever your reasoning. One who reaches spiritual maturity gains this feeling in connection with the Lord of the universe. The difference is that a child doesn’t have a sense of guilt, humility, humbleness, beseeching, and many other feelings towards his parents that a servant has towards his master. But, this kind of feeling of needing to be close to one’s parents, is created in a person who has reached spiritual maturity. Of course, his feeling of needing to be close to the Lord of the universe is much more intense than that of a child. He sees some obstacles between God and himself. He feels sad because of these obstacles. These obstacles may be natural obstacles, like the length of one’s lifespan before meeting God. He sees these natural obstacles as being a barrier for getting close to God and meeting Him, so he cries. Or these obstacles may be from himself, and they are usually of this type. Basically, one of the good feelings that a servant who has attained spiritual growth feels towards his master is that he always feels guilty before his master. This feeling of guilt is a true feeling and not a compliment. This will be the cause of his broken heart and sorrow, and he will be able to supplicate God. If the Almighty God wants to be gracious to a person, He puts him on the path of the relationship between a servant and his master. Naturally, there is only crying on this path. Perhaps many who are not familiar with these ideas will be surprised at these words. It’s like a person who wants to use logic to compel a child to be patient and silent for a few minutes while being apart from his mother. But the child doesn’t accept this at all. It’s as if no one understands the child, and the child doesn’t understand others. Rumi says beautifully in a poem, “When He wants to help us, He pulls our interest towards moaning.” Next, the poem describes a heart, which moans. “Auspicious is the heart, which burns for Him (from love). Good for the eyes, which weep for Him. A person who sees the end is a blessed servant. The end of each cry is a laugh. Wherever there are flowing tears, there’ll be mercy. Wherever there is running water, there’ll be greenery.” The poem continues describing crying. These are not descriptions, which will create that feeling in us. It’s like trying to describe a perfume or the smell of a flower. Or, it is like when we try to explain colors for a person who cannot see. There aren’t any words for describing colors. There are no words for describing the smell of a flower, or the smell of a perfume or cologne. Although people experience it, they cannot describe it. This state of wanting to supplicate God is created due to a spiritual growth. A person’s spiritual growth causes him to feel a need. This is in the same way that when people reach the age of maturity they feel a need for a companion, the same way that parents feel a need for children, and the same way that people feel a need for being in a community and are sad when they are alone. When a person grows spiritually, he wants this relationship with God too. All these supplications can be understood in such an atmosphere. If a person is not in such an atmosphere, he cannot understand this supplication at all. It’s very good if we recite this supplication with this feeling, this pleading and praying that, “God, open this door for me.” Or, we should read this supplication with the feeling that we are very far from the feeling that the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (‘a), felt. Praising this beautiful relationship and regretting that we don’t have it can bring a person closer to Him. Let’s talk about one of the phrases. In accordance with the rituals for supplication, the Imam (‘a) says, “What comes to me or is taken away, benefits or loss, are in Your hands and not the hands of anyone else.” One of the rituals for supplication is that a person announce his knowledge about God, especially knowledge about the oneness of the God of the universe. Seeing only God to be effective in the world, in our being and in our lives and remembering these monotheistic teachings in our praying to God and our supplications is beautiful. A tradition says, “When someone says, ‘There is no strength or power except from the High and Great God,’ the Almighty God immediately says, ‘My angels! See My servant confessed that no one has power except Me. Now, resolve any problems that he has.’”

Get up at dawn and confess your faults to God. Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ ... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/... Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ ============================== With all God’s power in designing and managing, He doesn’t have anything to do other than taking us on a journey! You just need to know and declare your faults to God at dawn [when praying]. Sit in the car for the rest of the day and God will take you. If you pay attention to your faults for a while, it will become easy for you. You’ll see the enjoyable results and won’t fear seeing your faults. Then you’ll see more of your faults. And you’ll see God hasn’t asked you for anything other than for you to see your faults. Get up at dawn, review your faults [before God] and see how He will manage your life till night. God won’t let you make mistakes. He will allow you to do some deeds to uplift yourself. He’ll take you to the paths where less bad events will happen for you. Your life will be fun. Have you seen how some people join tours that take them around? The tours ask people to join their group and they charge them too. People easily pay for such things and ask these tours to take them around. [They say,] “We don’t know which parts of this city are fun to see.” Tour leaders say, “I’ll take you around.” They stop at different places and explain for them. [In the same way,] Almighty God makes a person’s life like going on a picnic. You only need to know and declare your faults [to God] at dawn. Sit in the car for the rest of the day and God will take you. He says, “I have planned this for you today.” You yourself will start to realize what’s going on. It’s like you’re sitting in a personal trailer, not in a bus with forty other people. I mean a recreational vehicle that’s like a complete house. It’s a nice house. Imagine if someone is there who explains for you, “I want to take you to these places today. I saw that you have that certain problem and this herb is good for you. So I’m taking you to the farm where they have it. Also, I see you need this certain kind of exercise. So I’ll take you to a mountain for climbing, and this will help heal your leg pain. You also have that other problem, and there is a place for mineral water on our way.” “How beautiful you design everything for me!” God doesn’t have anything to do other than this! With all God’s power in designing and managing, He doesn’t have anything to do other than taking us on a journey! [In the Qur’an] when God wants to say He’s giving the worst punishment to a person, He says, “I abandoned him.” The Holy Prophet of Islam would constantly pray, “O God, don’t ever leave me on my own for even the blink of an eye.” Don’t leave me on my own. Plan for me. Take me on a picnic. Take me like a tour leader who takes people around and shows things to them. How does this come about? I swear this is the result of a person getting up at dawn and seeing and knowing his faults. With all God’s power in designing and managing, He doesn’t have anything to do other than taking us on a journey! Get up at dawn, review your faults [before God] and see how He will manage your life till night.

Crong only eats meat. On top of that, he doesn’t poop when his body tells him to, so Crong becomes constipated. Crong tries going to the bathroom to do his business many times, but nothing happens. His stomach feels even worse while he’s jumping on Eddy’s trampoline, but Crong doesn’t show his discomfort in front of his friends. Crong ends up going on a field trip with his friends, but he doesn’t enjoy the field trip at all. During the trip, Crong accidently toots in front of his friends! Crong rushes to the nearest bathroom, but he still can’t poop. Feeling helpless, Crong starts to cry. Suddenly, a poop fairy appears and explains to Crong why he hasn’t been able to poop.

We’ve been created for a continually increasing, warming love. Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ ... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/... Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ ============================== When you look at the collection of religious teachings and guidance, you usually feel they mostly tell us what not to do. [Religion says,] “Don’t do that. Detach yourself from this world. Abandon your wishes.” Religions guidance and commands mostly want us to put things aside. That is why many people don’t like religion. They feel that religious recommendations are mostly prohibiting, bitter and unpleasant. Is it really like this? Are most of religion\'s recommendations and teachings really about \"cutting off, detaching, giving something up and leaving\"? Is this true or is this a false belief? The fact is, yes, it is like this. The beloved Prophet of Islam (s) both warned and gave good tidings. He gave good news. But it’s clear that the Holy Prophet (s) is mostly addressed as a warner in the Qur’an. And his being a warner is more than his being one who gives good tidings. Why is it like this? It’s because a person doesn’t need to be told, “Be good. Be in love. Connect with God. Reach Him. Live with love.” You know, human beings don’t need such recommendations. Why? Because a person is in love. He wants to connect [with God]. People have all these good features. They are not apparent. They are hidden in a human being. If you abandon some things in your life, these will naturally show themselves. A person won’t fall in love by your saying, “Be in love. Be enthusiastic.” Love should come from within. Effective recommendations for people are words such as, “Abandon it. Leave it. Stop. Don’t say it. Don\'t say these words.\" In fact, religion’s way of training is a bit like looking for treasure. You have to open the way. Pick up this and that. Pick up this rock. Break that rock. Pick these up until you reach that shining gem, or until you reach that clear source of water, for example. It is like digging a well. Some are very pure. With a little digging you reach water. For others, you must dig a deep hole to reach water. So, you see religion’s recommendations mostly tell us what we shouldn’t do. They’re more about abandoning, prohibiting and warning. Religion wants to detach a person from some things instead of advising him to become connected [to God]. Because there is no need to advise people to become connected. We are all in love and have been created in love. If one abandons some things, love will show itself. So religion’s recommendations are prohibiting in appearances or at least there are more prohibiting ones. Religion truly wants to make people fall in love. But one doesn’t fall in love by telling him to do so. One should remove the obstacles. A person doesn’t need to be told, “Be good. Be in love. Connect with God. Reach Him. Live with love.” Why? Because a person is in love. He wants to connect [with God]. People have all these good features. They are not apparent. They are hidden in a human being. We’ve been created for a deep, lasting love. We’ve been created for a continually increasing, warming love! How can we gain this? By abandoning many things and detaching our heart from them.

"Business of a Great Leader Resemble in his Answers when he Speaks" starring a coward man named Musharraf, who 1st degrades his own country when asked a question portraying Pakistan as a country of barbarians and animals where things happen in probably an animalistic way then on a second question about whether or not he'll catch Bin Laden (who doesn't even exist) on US Orders, is more than happy to do so, and render any services US shall require. I would like to seriously contend, that THIS IS HOW A GREAT LEADER SPEAKS ... A man, who cannot stand the TRUTH is not worthy of being called a Leader like the man named Musharraf. He is one coward about whom Israeli Foreign Minister said on record, and I quote .. "Being a Proud and Staunch Jewish, Never in my Life I could even dream I would be praying for the life of a Muslim, but now I do .. for Musharraf" This shows the state of slavery that man has pushed his nation into, no matter how confidently he can answer the journalists, because it doesn't matter. Being able to Answer confidently, when you're not even standing with the truth is no metric to measure LEADERSHIP. A True Leader is one who stands for a CAUSE, not for others' causes .. He is the one who Stands for Truth, because even if you are in the Minority of ONE, Truth.. shall Still be the Truth ...

As if the Syrian talks in Geneva did not face enough challenges, a new one came into the picture, when US Congress approved continued support for what it called moderate Syrian rebels, raising the question again about a good and a bad terrorist. It also upped the bar on what type of aid: previously from non-lethal like night goggles, to small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. In this edition of the debate, we\'ll ask doesn\'t this contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Guests: - National Coordinator, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Brian Becker (WASHINGTON). - Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Lawrence Korb (WASHINGTON). Subjects: 1. From non-lethal aid, like nigh vision goggles and army uniforms, to a variety of small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets. - Funded by the U-S Congress, in votes behind closed doors, through the end of government fiscal year 2014, which ends on September 30: THAT MEANS FOR THE NEXT 8 MONTHS. - Also the issue that arms may fall into the hands of \"bad terrorists\", something US experienced in Afghanistan, Iraq and in Syria. 2. What about the good terrorist/bad terrorist scenario: this differentiation just can\'t apply, especially to the terrorists inside Syria, which the US calls the moderate Syrian rebels? 3. American military aid, now with explicit congressional approval: Doesn\'t it contradict the United States\' role as a sponsor of the peace talks? Whatever happened to US Sec. of State John Kerry saying repeatedly that there is no military solution? - Russia is working with the US to find a political solution, and suddenly US arms supplies, which contradicts the initiative 4. On terrorists: John Kerry said during opening of Geneva talks: in reference to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad: \"The Assad regime is a magnet for terrorists. The regime\'s brutality is the source of the violent extremism in Syria today: Is the US completely turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia\'s support for terrorists? 5. Timeline: Beg. Dec.: the US and Britain announced that they had suspended non-lethal aid: Why? Reports that their aid supplies could end up in hostile hands. Then in late December, reversed that decision: Yet US Congress \"secretly\" approved sending small arms, as well as some more powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets, also in Dec.: the US was not telling the truth, or given that this was done in secret, did not want it to be made public? 6. On the Syrian talks in Geneva: According to the divided opposition: the Syrian delegation has accepted the establishment of a transitional government body for the first time: Were it true, how what are the chances for the divided opposition to accept the govt. red line: Assad\'s departure? 7. Syria\'s divided opposition criticized a document presented by the Syrian govt which presented a statement of principles, calling for Syria \'s sovereignty to be respected, rejecting \"foreign interference\" and \"terrorism.\"? 8. Are we looking at u-turn from Turkey on Syria: AS we speak, PM Erodogan is in Iran holding talks with Ian\'s leader, its pres. and FM? 9. What may have happened if Iran was present?

Aisha El-Mekki’s mother didn’t believe in ‘sparing the rod’. She also had a deep respect for teachers, nuns and other authority figures; a respect that never trickled down to her youngest daughter. Discipline was real in the El-Mekki household, so from an early age she and her older sister formed an alliance. They promised not to tell on each other. Sometimes El-Mekki even took a beating for her sister. When she was in first grade, the two were sent away to a private, all-white boarding school. In third grade, El-Mekki was expelled. “As a child, if I got backed into a wall, I would refuse to do whatever you wanted me to do because you were trying to force me.” Upon returning to her home in Philadelphia, El-Mekki’s mother – who worked until five everyday – enrolled her daughter in the neighborhood school. It was around this time that El-Mekki met her best friend, Shakora. The two began spending afternoons together, deepening their friendship and getting into trouble. “One time I was on a bus. It was a Friday afternoon. The bus driver said my pass had expired; that I had to get a transfer…so he gave me a transfer while waiting for the next bus and the next bus was late. We waited for a while. There was a crowd of people by the time the bus came. [The next bus driver] said that my pass had expired and that I needed to get off the bus. Well I didn’t have any more money, so I said, ‘I paid my fare and I will ride.’ This man decided that he was going to send a message. So he stopped a police car and told them that I refused to pay. The police emptied the bus and told the driver to drive to the police station with just me on it….so he drives this empty bus to the police station and they arrested me. And this just infuriated me. My mother had to be called and of course she was just livid….she had to end up getting a lawyer, and had to go court, miss time from work…and eventually it was resolved but I mean they charged me. I had a record. It was ridiculous. That was my first incident with what I consider police brutality…and how they can escalate a situation unnecessarily.” Three years later, El Mekki graduated from an all-girls Catholic high school. It was at this point that she began to question the Trinity. She didn’t want to leave the church; she believed she would go to hell if she did. Still, the questions remained. So she kept her eyes open. After college, El-Mekki decided she wanted to become a social worker. She learned about a group called the Black Panther Party that was organizing programs for the needy. “When I heard about these people feeding children – and I worked on the midnight shift – I said, ‘you know what? I’m gonna go up there’. And there were tables and tables of children being fed cereal and toast, and I was really amazed. People were doing this out of the bottom of their hearts. They weren’t getting paid for it. But they wanted to make sure the children were getting a decent breakfast.” El-Mekki joined the group. At the same time, her religious search continued. “I had an aunt that was Muslim. I used to visit her. She was not aggressive, she was not pushy, she was not trying to convert me. Anytime I had a question, she would answer. Her husband was very nice. And I liked the way her family was so calm. It was so peaceful. And so I would go visit her often. During that time I was in the Black Panther Party, and she didn’t disapprove. Everybody else in my family said, ‘Here she goes again, doing something off the beaten path.’ But not aunt Mariam. One time when we knew that there was going to be a police raid, and we were trying to get the children out because I didn’t want the children to be there. And she just told me to bring them to her house. You know? And I just admired her. I just said wow, if her religion supports revolutionary acts like that, then I want to hear more about it. So she would always be listening to Shaheed Malcolm’s albums. She owned every word he ever said. And she’d often have his records on when I’d go over there. And she gave me his book to read because I was always asking questions about him. And that was like the answer to my prayer. You know? The part where he said that our religion doesn’t teach us to be aggressive, but if you lay a hand on me, then I can send you to the cemetery. And I said, ‘I can do that. That is the religion that I need.’ You know, that allows me to defend myself. That doesn’t encourage me to just constantly turn the other cheek. Nobody else is turning the other cheek. They’re turning the other side of their hand. And so i decided you know what, that’s when I decided Islam was for me because it allowed me to be religious and at the same time, be revolutionary.” innerrevolutions.net

A revolutionary rap performed by a courageous young brother in Iran, discussing contemporary issues in an artistic and thought-provoking manner. Before commenting on the Islamic permissibility of this piece, please watch our videos on the subject of music carefully and then come to an understanding. How Haram is Music? | Biskit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fVCCPe7CSs Is All Music Haram? | Shaykh Usama Abdulghani https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdaRNOSgpLM Analysis of the Music Industry | Shaykh Salim Yusufali | Weapons of Mass Deception https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_tpCZzIX0 #IslamicRevolution #Unity #IslamicMusic #Nasheed #FreeZakzaky #Zakzaky #FreeKashmir #Kashmir #ImamKhamenei #Khamenei #SoftWar #CultureWar #IslamicRepublic #Imperialism #Colonialism #Scholars4Dollars #Saudis #TakfiriWahhabis #BritishShiaism #Wahhabis #America #israel #UK #Trump #Netanyahu #BorisJohnson #RowanAtkinson #Modi #BJP #India #Pakistan #EndOfTimes #ImamMahdi #AJTF #DTA #DTI ______________________________ LYRICS: Ya Imam! We heard your father foretold, \\\"One\\\'s religion will be harder to hold Than gripping onto a burning coal at the end of times” Now here we are Some praying hypocritically ain’t it bizarre? so it\\\'s better if you don\\\'t return just yet- the only one suffering to that extent, - not hiding or attempting to circumvent - is #ShaykhZakzaky and a handful of others not even 1% The rest of us are busy living the rat-race, And those who strut around with utmost grace Representatives of the Deen of the Human Race are no different today than they were 1000 years ago – When betrayal and cowardice used to flow Instead of blood through their veins, Ready to take no pains, ready to suffer no trials All the while, got you stuck in your comfort zone So tell me again why a youth like me ought to stand alone? stand alone? stand alone? So tell me again why a youth like me ought to stand alone? It’s a joke. But it ain’t funny. People doing what they do For just a bit of money. The two Qiblahs of the Muslims are occupied Would the Prophet have laughed or would he have cried? The Leader proved that we could go so far The sky is the limit, but you’re sat on the sofa Forget about speaking out against America- You can’t even tell me it’s haram to go to the bar - Shh- MI6 could have us on the radar- “God forbid my reputation gets marred”- next year they won’t call me back to Zanzibar Shopping around in the community bazar While you ride around in your fancy little car, Sitting with politicians eatin’ caviar, The war in Venezuela’s what paid for your cigar, Mum said to listen to you, coz you’re a scholar But reality is - You’re a celebrity, not a shining star- - You’re no less than the People of Kufa What you say and what you do is so far From one another so Tell me again how for me, The Holy Prophet’s an exemplar! It’s a joke. But it ain’t funny. People doing what they do For just a bit of money. The two Qiblahs of the Muslims are occupied Would Imam have laughed or would he have cried? You see all too clearly what we do – while neglecting utterly the cause of Palestine, and the cause of Zakzaky too, we’ve neglected Yemen and are compliant to the People of Lut - All the while, stirring up an “Islamic” tea To serve with utmost akhlaq to you and to me, But within the cup ain’t a drop of purity- From the wide and vast Islamic sea, All you see in your cup is hypocrisy, While you’re sipping away, in prison is a scholar named Zakzaky - It’s not Islam AT ALL, don’t you see? Like a fake brand name, slapping the name Of Husayn on piece of cloth, doesn’t make it the same. - they call them scholars- but they’re Insane scholars for dollars And they only exist because this nation Doesn’t stop filling their pockets with elation Take a hike, take a vacation- Please - not to Buckingham palace drinking from a tyrant’s chalice Kissing up to the kings of malice Being callous towards those who need us most You sit on the pulpit and boast While the children of Yemen are toast children of Palestine roast there’s only suffering Coast-to-coast, But you’re thoroughly enjoying your post, Adios Amigos, Trump in the White House Mr. Bean at number 10 You say NOTHING time and time again - Stop the charade of being wise men, Because you’re nothing but comedians Jesters at the foot of Big Ben, While you give the masses all of your charm Imam Husayn never needed your salaam… If you don’t rise up- say Goodbye to Islam _______________________________

The Secret behind the Special Status of Hazrat Abu al-Fazl al-Abbas (\'a) Everything for Aba Abdullah al-Husayn (‘a) in Karbala was Abbas. Does a person become like this because his hand is cut off? No! Where a person is struck isn’t what makes a difference. A person’s body strength isn’t what makes a difference. What is it that separates Aba al-Fazl al-Abbas from the rest so much? Intention! “And I will fight with whoever fights with you.” He was thinking about the world. Do you know what Abbas’s intention was that he reached to this height? Saving the entire world! He didn’t want less than this. He was standing with Imam Husayn (‘a) and he saw 72 helpers, a few tents, and 30,000 enemies. But, he was thinking about the world, about humankind. He was big. It is not unlikely that on the day of Ashura he was thinking about Imam Mahdi’s (‘a.j.) reappearance. He wasn’t caught up with small problems. Look at a part of Aba al-Fazl al-Abbas’s intention. It is obvious that even if we are martyred we will not reach to this point. It is very difficult for a person to have worked on correcting his intention this much. The only person who asked Imam Husayn (‘a) in this way to enter the battlefield was Aba al-Fazl al-Abbas (‘a). He said, “My Master, I’m tired of these hypocrites. Give me permission to go and take revenge.” You should always have this intention of destroying the enemies of religion somewhere in your heart. Yah! If I could destroy them. Yah! I wish I could strike them hard, O God! Having this intention against them is very purifying and uplifting. See how much the Imam’s (‘a) enemies are cursed in the Ashura Supplication? Why should we just send our greetings upon the Imam (‘a) with much feeling? “And I will fight with whoever fights with you.” (Ashura Supplication) Do you know what Abal Fazl al-Abbas’s intention was that he reached this level? Saving the entire world. Hating the enemies. This should be a part of our intention. You have probably heard that tradition about Imam Javad (‘a). He would pound his fist on the ground and say, “I’ll kill and burn.” He was asked, “What? Who? What are you doing? Where are you now?” He said, “The one who came and burned the door of the house of our mother, Fatimah Zahra (‘a).” This means that our mother was pressed between the door and the wall, and thought, “My sad story will reach my children. The hatred of my enemies will enter their hearts, and they will grow.” What an expense was made for your luminous hearts between the door and the wall. Whoever comes to the Bani Hashim Alley and sees the burned door, won’t leave this alley anymore. A tradition says, “If a person doesn’t wish to kill the enemies (of Islam) with his sword someday, and he dies, he has died with a kind of hypocrisy.” “If a person is not in the battlefield, or he doesn’t read the tradition about holy war for himself, he will leave this world with a kind of hypocrisy.” (Sahih Muslim, vol. 3, p. 1,517)

- With the surging second wave of the COVID-9 pandemic, the reality of death is a clear and present reality in front of us - What can we do to remember family and friends who have passed away? - In Islamic literature, there is a concept of \'isale sawab\' - sending gifts to those who have passed - Covering the 3 forms of gifts: praying for forgiveness, reciting the Qur\'an, and charity - The two forms of charity, singular and perpetual - The need to innovate on charitable actions for the deceased, especially looking at the aspect of constant reprinting of Qur\'ans - The importance of visiting graves - Narrating a story told by the Prophet regarding charity \"When someone passes, the family prints Sura Yasin booklets for distribution hoping it\'s recited, & the thawab will go to the deceased. Tell me which Muslim household doesn\'t already have a Qur\'an? Which Qur\'an doesn\'t already have Sura Yasin? Be creative with your charity, look for something that will both help your community & generate thawab for the deceased, such as children\'s education for example. If you really want to print something, then select a dua from Sahifa Sajjadiyyah, or a sermon from Nahjul Balagha so more people may benefit.\"

He wants to prove to you that He is the only power. Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ ... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/... Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ ============================== We want God to give us security. We want to seek refuge in God as a result of having experienced insecurity. What do we need to know to make this come about better? What is it? God\'s power. His power! I will tell you now. Read the Qur\'an a lot. God, the Almighty, seriously intends to convince everyone who reads these verses that He is the first and last power in the universe. He wants to prove to you that He is a superpower, and actually He is the only power. God is the absolute power. He does whatever He wants. He forgives, guides and grants sustenance to whomever He wants. [Qur’an 3:129, 74:31, 2:212] He attributes many things to Himself. “We [God] created heaven and earth. We said this and that.” God creates an upheaval! A person gradually accepts this. Therefore, I ask you to first look at the Qur\'an as an educational, spiritually effective, constructive book, not as a book that should be translated scientifically to take rulings and lessons from it. Let it correct you. For example, they give eggplant stew to someone in a laboratory and say, “Test this and see if it’s good or not. Check the amount of vitamins in it.” This scientist won’t eat it even if he is dying from hunger. He wants to test this food. Many of us who go toward the Qur’an act like this scientist in the laboratory does. “Let’s see what’s in it.” Eat it! Eat it! You’re weak from hunger. Consume the Qur’an! For example, one is listening to music. [Someone says,] “You’re listening to music a lot. You really enjoy it!” [He replies,] “No, I’ve been asked to write down the lyrics of these 100 songs. That’s what I’m doing. I don’t like them at all. I can’t relate to them. I don’t know their genres or anything about them.” This is a meaningless connection with music. The purpose of music is not for you to write the lyrics! A person who does this is a researcher and doesn’t understand the elements of music. He doesn’t fly with music. Does anyone fly with music? Yes, as much as a hen can fly! But with the Qur’an, one flies to God Himself. He flies through the atmosphere and through the galaxy. Once there was an art student in the university who was also a painter. As I was walking through the university campus, I saw him painting. There was a small cassette player next to him playing music. I asked him very cautiously, “Why are you listening to this music?” He said, “Music makes the soul more delicate, and I am doing something delicate now. I want this delicacy to be conveyed.” He was right. I said, “If I suggest something, will you try it? Listen to the Qur’an for a while.” He said, “Qur’an?” I remember he said this in surprise. I answered, “Yes, see if it has the same effect.” I went to that same college the next month. He came to me very upset! I asked myself, “What should I do now? It seems my suggestion wasn’t appropriate for him.” He was truly upset. He came forward and said angrily, “I’ve wasted my life! Why hadn’t I ever done this before? You don’t know what an impact this has had on me!” He was ahead of the one who had suggested this! Use the Qur’an. Recite the Qur’an a lot. God, the Almighty, seriously intends to convince everyone who reads these verses that He is the first and last power in the universe. He wants to prove to you that He is a superpower, and actually He is the only power.

I want to enjoy more. Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ ... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/... Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ ============================== What is your purpose in practicing religion? We can mention other reasons for our religiosity. They are right too. But it\'s not suitable to word it like that. It’s not nice or pleasant to say it like that. [We can count them,] “One, two, three, four.” Usually the reasons mentioned are not accurate. It’s more accurate to say, “I want to enjoy more.” Why do you want to enjoy more in this world and in the Hereafter? Because God has created me to enjoy, not to suffer. God is kind. He has allowed me to experience pleasures and has created me in a way that I pursue enjoyments. He doesn’t say, “Don’t touch it! I want to bother you.” Is God like this?! One doesn’t understand God if he thinks he hasn’t been created to enjoy. Have you seen how some fathers are a little grudging? God forbid, I don’t want to insult fathers. Or some employers or bosses. For example, a father sees his child is playing. As soon as he sees his child playing, he says, “Shouldn’t you be studying now?!” [The child says,] “You can’t tolerate me playing? You have to remind me now?!” Some people think the same way about God. They think God likes to see us suffering! What is your purpose in practicing religion? Don’t say, “So I won’t go to Hell.” Don’t say, “I’m forced to.” Only a part of this is true! Don’t say, “This is God’s right.” What will happen next after you carry out God’s right? Will you enjoy it? [You’ll say,] “No, I’m not after enjoying.” You force me to say something! I have to tell you, “Kiddo! You’re not at that level! You’ll go astray with one small pleasure. And now you’re talking about carrying out God’s right?!” Human beings have been created to enjoy. “Why do you practice religion?” To enjoy. “Is practicing religion the way for us to enjoy?” Yes! Now the second part of the discussion starts. Yes, no one else knows how to show the way. [One might say,] “No, God is showing us how to stay away from sins.” God is not that boring! God has created me to enjoy. Is it rational for Him to not let me enjoy? [He won’t say,] “I’ve created you to enjoy, but don’t touch anything! Go away!” This is a misconception about God! Such a God is not kind. We say, “In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.” God Who is kind has created me to enjoy. We can’t deny this. Wouldn’t this be unkind for Him to tell me to move away [from pleasures]? What is your purpose in practicing religion? We can mention other reasons for our religiosity. They are right too. But it\'s not accurate to word it like that. It’s more accurate to say, “I want to enjoy more.”

We haven’t been able to help people to understand this attractive, affectionate, deep, rational concept of getting close to God. Follow us: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Panahianen/ ... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/PanahianEN/... Twitter: https://twitter.com/PanahianEN Telegram: https://telegram.me/Panahianen/ ============================== The most important feature of a goal is that it should create a fire from within a person. It should give warmth, strengthen, entertain and give direction to a person’s imaginations. This is how a person’s goal should be, otherwise one’s life is useless. [As a poem says,] “Pray over his body although he’s not dead.” A life in which one’s goal doesn’t give warmth and doesn’t answer one’s need for love is a very low level of life. In our life, everything really depends on the goal we choose. Imagine if you let people be free but don’t talk about religion, God’s commands or beliefs. Just tell people, “Live with a goal that warms you, creates a fire and answers your need for love. See where you can find this goal yourself.” They can’t find such a goal even if false propaganda is used. Have you seen that people talk about love and affection? It’s interesting that everyone talks about love, but no one reaches to it. Everyone likes and admires a life filled with love. Instead of using the term “a life with love,” God has designed this in religion in this way that He says, “Set your goal to be getting close to Me.” Getting close to God will light a fire (of love) in one’s heart. Maybe when people talk about a life with love, this is what they mean. And we have worked so poorly and weakly in this regard! The effects of our deeds have sometimes been so repulsive that we haven’t been able to help people to understand this attractive, affectionate, deep, and so rational concept of getting close to God. People do not know religion to be getting close to God. But no deed without having the intention of getting close to God is accepted. Unfortunately, if you introduce religion without the concept of getting close to God, religion will seem awful to people. Those people [who’ve learned this kind of religion] are right to hate it. Perhaps religion without the passionate, attractive meaning of closeness to God has been taught to them. Imagine if one is able to understand such a goal, he sets it as his goal and he is able to gradually strengthen this goal. Imagine what effects this will have on one’s heart. The explosive part of religion that awakens one’s heart and causes him to move can be found in the concepts of getting close to God and how to get close to Him. God shows us this majestic universe and says, “I have created these. These are my creation. Now look at Me Myself.” It’s incomparable. Then God says, “Set your goal to be getting close to Me.”

As if we needed any more proof that the international media deliberately avoids exposing anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian injustices, its suspect behavior during recent days has sealed the case. Even as we were being force-fed minute details of Michael Jackson's colorful life along with endless speculation as to the true parentage of his children, a former U.S. Congresswomen and presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, was languishing in an Israeli jail. Her 'crime' was boarding the Free Gaza Movement's aid vessel The Spirit of Humanity in Cyprus, in an effort to break Israel's cruel siege of Gaza, which even the U.S. President has condemned. Like several of her sister vessels, The Spirit of Humanity was attacked by the Israeli Navy in international waters before being boarded by Israeli commandos and dragged along with its crew and passengers towards Israel. Once there, 21 human rights advocates from the U.S., Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Jordan, Palestine and Yemen, including McKinney, Noble Laureate Mairead Maguire, and documentary filmmaker Adam Shapiro, were incarcerated. Let's be realistic. If just about any other high-profile U.S. politician on any other mission had been detained within a cell block on foreign soil, the incident would have merited headlines. However, McKinney's abduction went almost unnoticed. Not only was the story relegated to the back pages, if it ran at all, there was a corresponding absence of comment from Congress and the White House. McKinney is now home after refusing to sign a statement in Hebrew that she was guilty of a violation, but the mainstream media is certainly not clamoring at her door for interviews. As far as I can tell, her ordeal has mostly been covered by left-wing outlets such as Democracy Now or Middle East networks including Al Jazeera and Press TV. A number of McKinney's supporters say the reason for the media blackout was the fact that she is a Black American. But, in fact, it's her cause that's the problem rather than her color. My analysis is based on the lack of media coverage given to the Viva Palestina aid convoy of trucks and ambulances from London to Gaza, led by British Parliamentarian George Galloway. The Herculean efforts of hundreds of ordinary Britons to deliver much-needed humanitarian supplies to war-torn Gaza earlier this year was a non-event as far as the media was concerned until Galloway was barred from entering Canada as a result. Unless you're a person who relentlessly digs on the internet, you probably are not aware that during McKinney's ordeal, Galloway, along with Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic, were meeting up with over 200 Americans in Cairo armed with $2 million (Dh7.35 million) that was raised in the U.S. to buy trucks and medical aid destined for Gaza. The Egyptian English-language paper Al Ahram Weekly dubs this ""the largest grassroots medical relief effort for Gaza in U.S. history"" but once again, this doesn't merit column inches in either U.S. or European mainstream papers. In a similar vein, is the way that the horrendous courtroom stabbing of 32-year-old Marwa Al Sherbini was considered inconsequential by the German media until it elicited angry protests in her hometown of Alexandria. There are so many aspects to this story, which should have been emblazoned across front pages. First of all it was a blatant race crime, which Germany is normally sensitive about. Second, it begs questions concerning court security. What were armed officers doing when Marwa was stabbed 18 times and why was her husband shot when he attempted to protect his pregnant wife? What kind of editors would bin reports of such a horrendous crime carried out in full view of the authorities? What were they thinking? Purely coincidentally, I was sitting at a table with one of Marwa's uncles in an Alexandria coffee shop when he received a call on his mobile and had to dash off because of a ""family emergency"". Today, this exceptionally close-knit family is devastated and hurt that the murder of one of their own wasn't initially treated with the weight the crime deserved. Egyptians are outraged at Germany's disinterest and the inaction of their own foreign office. The numbers who attended her funeral, who gathered outside the German embassy in Cairo and who demonstrated in Cairo and Alexandria speak for themselves. Because Marwa's dispute with her attacker was based on his objections to her Islamic headscarf, the death of the young pharmacist has become an emblem for the rights of Muslim women at a time when the French President is attempting to ban the burqa. Marwa loved life. She didn't plan to become a martyr. But in the eyes of Egyptians calling for a mosque and a street in Alexandria to be renamed in her honor, she is a heroine. If the U.S. and Europe are chronically supine when it comes to Muslim causes, then the governments and media throughout the Arab and Muslim world should embrace them clearly and loudly. With anti-Muslim hate crimes on the rise, Muslims need a strong united voice on the international stage. Shame on the world's media that appears to be united only in its anti-Muslim bias! Linda S. Heard is a specialist British writer on Middle East affairs. (Source: Gulf News